Jari Arkko
(was Discuss)Yes

(Cullen Jennings)Yes

Alexey Melnikov
(was Discuss)Yes

Comment (2010-04-13 for -)

Authors emailed Graham Klyne directly and he just confirms that his Expert Review is done (approved).
Previously a DISCUSS from Lisa:
Similarly, is there a possible way to limit 'u' so that the URIs are more frequently comparable? I'm making up stuff at this point, but lets say there's a few classes of devices that half roughly 1m uncertainty, 10m uncertainty and 100m uncertainty. If those classes of devices used those values rather than an uncertainty of 7.4m or 14m, then u values would match up more frequently.
For example, geo:13.4125,103.8667;u=9 and geo:13.4125,103.8667;u=10 are completely different by the current rules. But if implementers were encouraged to prefer u=1, u=10 and u=100 over other values, then both implementers would choose u=10 as close enough, and the URIs would be equivalent. Just add text that encourages those values (or other even better values, with the authors' greater domain knowledge).
Final point: I found some excellent advice here:
http://nih.blogspot.com/2009/11/defining-new-uri-or-urn-scheme-properly.html
"Provide more examples of actual URIs or URNs than you think people will need. Along with an example, explain how that example would be assigned, derived, and if applicable, dereferenced."

(Peter Saint-Andre)(was Discuss)Yes

Comment (2010-04-14)

The document contains numerous grammatical and typographical errors.

(Robert Sparks)(was Discuss, Yes)Yes

Comment (2010-02-18)

Please add an explicit statement on whether case is sensitive when comparing parameter names and values.